Many of us were Spurgeonites:
https://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/spurgeon-vs-spurgeon/
Spurgeon, "...worried that the confessional language creates a cold, uncaring God. In fact, he created his own metaphor of an uncaring doctor who is only interested in outcomes, not in the sufferings of his patient.
This is a Truth of God of which I feel jealous and I do not wish to see it toned down. There is a sentiment abroad that sounds plausible and is accepted by many Christian people, that God puts us to much sorrow, wisely and for our good, while His own heart is unaffected or callous to our suffering because He foresees, according to His own purpose, the good that will come out of it. Some kind of analogy might, in that case, be suggested between our gracious God and a skillful surgeon, who cuts and cuts deeply, when he would remove a cancer from the flesh. Or a physician who administers potent drafts of medicine, which, perhaps, cause excruciating pain. The surgeon would be too intent on the success of his operation, or the physician would watch with too much anxiety, the effect of his prescription on the patient to bestow much thought or sympathy on those present sufferings which he confidently anticipates will effect a permanent cure.
I dont know if that sort of preaching was common in Spurgeons day. Ive never heard such preaching and wouldnt endorse it. The passages which speak of Gods divine affection toward His people are real, and they cannot be reduced to this sort of cold, heartless practice. Does the confessional statement require this of us? If we deny that God has passion, do we deny that He pities? That He loves? That has never been the case throughout the history of the church.
He insinuated that the confessional position denies the preacher permission to use the language of Scripture, as though we cannot speak of Gods compassion and grief where the Bible does:
This is a Truth of God of which I feel jealous and I do not wish to see it toned down
Hear it, dear Friends, first, for your encouragement, and hear it, next, for your imitation. Hear it that you may be encouraged! God is not unfeelingly afflicting you, but He is pitying you! Hear it that you may be impelled to go into the world with a like pitying eye. If you ever have to say a rough word in fidelity, or are required to utter a stern rebuke, do it after the manner of your heavenly Father, pitying even if you have to blame, and gently delivering the expostulation which it grieves you to have to deliver at all!
Well, yes. In fact, Yea and Amen! I wonder if this isnt what Spurgeon was getting at when he seemed to imply that the metaphor must bear a literal meaning? Was he merely saying, Dont make so much of its metaphorical character in your preaching that you lose the force of it? I am uncertain, but here he seems concerned that
we not become passionless in our preaching.
Again, though, we must ask whether the confession forbids us to speak in the manner Scripture speaks, or to use its metaphors. Certainly not! We ought to preach scripturally, and we ought to employ its words including its metaphors. We ought not require that every hearer be fully conversant in the complexities of metaphor, either. The point of the confessional doctrine is only to make certain that we not alter the immutable character of God by making Him into a changeable and changing creature. That introduces some caution into the manner in which we express divine pity; it certainly does not eliminate such expression altogether."
